sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bigeye tuna, European anchovy, European sprat

Vol. 530: 243–254, 2015 MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Published June 18 doi: 10.3354/meps11049 Mar Ecol Prog Ser

Contribution to the Theme Section ‘Economics of marine ecosystem conservation’ FREE ACCESS

Trends in global shared

Louise S. L. Teh*, U. Rashid Sumaila

Fisheries Economics Research Unit, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada

ABSTRACT: Shared fisheries involve that are caught in the marine waters of more than one country, or in the high seas. These fisheries are economically and biologically significant, but a global picture of their importance relative to total world fisheries catch and economic value is lacking. We address this gap by undertaking a global-scale analysis of temporal trends in shared fisheries species catch and landed value from 1950 to 2006. We find that (1) the number of coun- tries participating in shared fisheries has doubled in the past 55 yr; (2) the most commonly tar- geted shared species have shifted from those that were mainly restricted to the North Atlantic to species that are highly migratory and are distributed throughout the world; (3) countries which account for the highest proportion of global shared fish species catch and landed value tend to be large industrial powers, whereas those which are most reliant on shared fisheries at a national scale are mainly smaller developing countries. Overall, our findings indicate the increas- ing need to accommodate a greater number and diversity of interests, and also consider equity issues in the management and allocation of internationally shared resources.

KEY WORDS: Shared fisheries · Landed values · Global fisheries · Co-operative management

Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher

INTRODUCTION plicated by the need for international co-operation. This requires an understanding of the strategic in - Shared fisheries, which involve fish that are caught teraction between coastal countries with respect to in the marine waters of more than one country, or in issues such as free riding (i.e. when one party con- the high seas, occur throughout the world. These sumes more or pays less than their fair share of a shared fisheries are economically and biologically common resource), the formation of coalitions in significant, making their management and conserva- multinational fisheries governing bodies, illegal and tion a priority for the sustainability of world fisheries unregulated fishing, and distant water fishing (Munro (FAO 2003). However, shared fisheries are generally 2009). Effective co-operation in international fish- overexploited (Maguire et al. 2006), and certain eries re source management has been difficult to shared species such as oceanic and deep-sea achieve (Munro et al. 2004, Sumaila 2012), especially species are particularly vulnerable to fishing (Norse for small island developing states that are affected by et al. 2012, Worm et al. 2013). financial, institutional, and human resource con- Further, shared fisheries are a concern because it straints (Haughton et al. 2004). is well established that sharing results in , The conservation and management of marine fish- in the absence of governance measures to ensure eries and species in areas beyond national juris - co-operation among fishing nations (Munro 1979, diction are carried out through a range of multilat- Sumaila 1997, McWhinnie 2009). The sustainability eral and multinational arrangements, processes, and of high seas fisheries is a particular challenge due to legal instruments. These include regional fisheries the open-access nature of the high seas (Rogers et al. management organizations such as the Western 2014, White & Costello 2014). Compared to domestic and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) fisheries, shared fisheries governance is further com- and Inter-American Tropical Commission, and

*Corresponding author: [email protected] © Inter-Research 2015 · www.int-res.com 244 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 530: 243–254, 2015

international conventions such as the Convention on METHODS Biological Diversity, Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and In this study we consider a targeted fish species to Flora (CITES), and the UN Convention on the Law of be ‘shared’ if it has a spatial range which potentially the Seas (UNCLOS). extends beyond the boundaries of a country’s Exclu- Regional fisheries management organizations sive Economic Zone (EEZ), or occurs in the high seas. (RFMOs) are responsible for regulating and manag- In this sense, it is consistent with the definition of ing fish catches (e.g. ) in the high seas. While species that are shared fish stocks given by the Food certain commercial tuna stocks are in relatively and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations good shape (ISSF 2013), the overall performance of (FAO) (Munro et al. 2004), which includes the follow- RFMOs has been inadequate (Allen 2010, Cullis- ing: (1) Transboundary stocks—fish that cross from Suzuki & Pauly 2010, Gjerde et al. 2013). Regional the boundary of one EEZ into the EEZs of one or fisheries management policies such as the European more coastal countries; (2) Highly migratory fish Union Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), have also stocks—fish that are by nature highly migratory, and been unable to achieve sustainable fisheries targets are found both within a country’s EEZ and the (Froese & Proelß 2010, although see Cardinale et adjacent high seas. We followed the UNCLOS list of al. 2013 for a more positive assessment). Moreover, 17 highly migratory species (www. un. org/ depts/los/ management problems will likely be amplified in the convention_agreements/texts/unclos/annex1.htm); future, as climate change affects the spatial distribu- (3) Straddling stocks—fish stocks that are found both tion and economics of fisheries (Miller 2007, Cheung within the coastal country and the adjacent high et al. 2010, Sumaila et al. 2011, Miller et al. 2013), seas; (4) Discrete high seas stocks—fish stocks that and competition for increasingly scarce fisheries re- are only found in the high seas. sources intensifies. Therefore, there is an urgent We conducted a literature search to identify fish need to establish more effective international shared species or groups (including invertebrates and crus- fisheries management. In order to do so, a better taceans) that are potentially shared among countries, understanding of general trends in shared fisheries based on the 4 categories of shared fish stocks (see ‘Methods’ for a definition) is required. defined above. However, we emphasize that our It was estimated that annual catches of shared fish analysis pertains to shared fish species, and not to species made up approximately one fifth of world specific stocks. The taxon names (family//spe- capture fisheries in 2001, but this estimate included cies) corresponding to these potentially shared fish only species that were highly migratory or that were species were obtained from the Sea Around Us Pro- straddling stocks (Munro et al. 2004). Prior studies on ject (SAUP) database (www.seaaroundus.org). This shared fisheries management have tended to exam- resulted in a list of 344 fish taxon names (for simplic- ine co-operative arrangements for specific stocks, ity referred to hereafter as ‘species’) that we consid- e.g. Norwegian (Arnason et al. 2000), north- ered to be ‘shared’ fish species (Table S1 in the Sup- east Atlantic (Armstrong & Sumaila 2000), and plement at at www.int-res. com/articles/ suppl/m530 tuna (Sumaila & Huang 2012). While McWhinnie p243_ supp.pdf ). We assumed that these species were (2009) conducted a global analysis of shared fish ‘shared’ for the entire analysis period from 1950 to stocks, her study focused on the effect of sharing on 2006. Note that these are fish species which may the exploitation status of fish stocks. Moreover, potentially be shared but, depending on where they shared fishery management arrangements are gen- occur, may not actually be caught by more than 1 erally species specific, or structured around geo- country. To account for the spatial aspect, we com- graphical areas. For instance, of the 18 RFMOs piled a list of shared fish species caught within each worldwide, 6 concentrate on a single species— FAO major fishing area (Table S2 in the Supple- tuna—in different , while the remainder deal ment). This list was then used to filter the 354 poten- with pelagic and demersal fisheries in defined geo- tially shared fish species, resulting in 206 shared fish graphical areas. Overall, a global picture of the sig- species−FAO area pairs. nificance of shared fish species catches and landed To obtain country-specific shared fish catch and value is lacking. The objective of this study is to landed values, countries within each FAO area were address this gap by investigating temporal patterns allocated to the shared fish species associated with in global catch and landed value of shared fish the respective area. We obtained shared fish species species at country and regional scales, from 1950 to for 14 FAO regions (Table 1). The Northeast Atlantic 2006. (Area 27) had the highest number of shared fish spe- Teh & Sumaila: Shared fisheries economics 245

cies (71), while the Southern Oceans (Areas 48, 58, eign caught fish. That is, catch data for species x in 88) had the lowest (8). We then extracted annual country y reflect the amount of species x caught in catch and landed value data by EEZ for these spa- country y’s EEZ as well as the catch of species x by tially matched shared fish species from the SAUP country y in one or more other EEZs. As per our catch database from 1950 to 2006, the latest year definition of shared fish species, we are interested in for which data was available. If a country’s EEZ ex- the overall catch and value of fish species which tended across multiple FAO fishing areas, a species make up shared fishery resources. As such, we did was considered to be shared if it occurred as a shared not distinguish between domestic and foreign por- species in at least 1 FAO area. tions of each country’s catch or landed value Catch data from the SAUP database cover the pe- riod 1950−2006 and refer to reported marine landings; discards and illegal catches are not included. Annual RESULTS AND DISCUSSION marine capture fisheries landings data from the FAO form the base for the SAUP global dataset. This data Global temporal trend is then supplemented and refined with finer scale catch breakdowns from regional and national organi- Estimated global catch of shared fish species showed zations, where available. A spatial allocation system a rising trend for the period 1950−2006, increasing based on the known spatial distribution and habitat approximately 5-fold from 7.2 × 106 t in 1950 to 34.2 × preferences of fish taxa, global fishing access agree- 106 t by 2006. Due to the absence of other estimates ments, and statistical reporting areas, is used to allo- on catch of global shared species, we are unable to cate reported landings to a global system of 30 min corroborate our figures. However, based on FAO sta- latitude × 30 min longitude cells (Watson et al. 2004). tistics, Maguire et al. (2006) estimated that catches of The time series of global marine fisheries landed val- highly migratory tuna and tuna-like species amounted ues is calculated by combining the spatially allocated to 4.8 × 106 t in 2004. This is similar to our estimate of catch data with a database on global ex-vessel prices, 4.3 × 106 t for global catch of shared tuna species in described by Sumaila et al. (2007) and Swartz et al. 2004, and indicates that our methodology yields (2012). The annual landed values for each country are results that are within reasonable bounds of other adjusted by the Consumer Price Index and reported in studies. At the same time, our results may be con - 2005 real US dollars. sidered conservative because we did not account for In the SAUP database, catches assigned to each illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, country’s EEZ are inclusive of both domestic and for- which is widespread all over the world (Sumaila et al. 2006, Agnew et al. 2009). For the entire period, shared Table 1. Number of shared fish species or groups occurring in major FAO fishing areas fisheries accounted for around 35 to 50% of total global catches, FAO area(s) No. of shared Source(s) with a peak of around 50% in fish species/ the mid-1960s, followed by a groups decrease to a low of 34% in the 61 (Northwest Pacific) 63 FAO (1994), Maguire et al. (2006) early 1970s. A second peak oc - 71 (West Central Pacific) 41 Menasveta (2000) curred in the mid-1990s when 67 (Northeast Pacific) 25 FAO (1994), Maguire et al. (2006) the contribution of shared fish- 77 (East Central Pacific) 28 Maguire et al. (2006) eries to global fisheries rose 87 (Southeast Pacific) 53 FAO (1994, 2003) Maguire et al. (2006) to approximately 52%; it then 81 (Southwest Pacific) 37 FAO (1994), Maguire et al. (2006) 21 (Northwest Atlantic) 47 FAO (1994), Maguire et al. (2006) remained relatively stable in 31 (West Central Atlantic) 37 FAO (1994) the mid-40% range to 2006 27 (Northeast Atlantic) 71 Maguire et al. (2006), Northeast (Fig. 1). In comparison, it was Atlantic Fisheries Commission estimated that highly migratory (www.neafc.org) 41 (Southwest Atlantic) 38 FAO (1994) and actual and potentially strad- 37 (Mediterranean) 40 FAO (1994), Ungaro et al. (2008) dling stocks made up approxi- 47 (Southeast Atlantic) 44 FAO (1994) mately 20% of world capture 51 (West Indian ) 42 Menasveta (2000) fisheries landings in 2001 57 (East Indian Ocean) 43 Menasveta (2000) 48, 58, 88 (Southern Ocean) 8 Maguire et al. (2006) (Munro et al. 2004). Our study expands upon this previous esti - 246 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 530: 243–254, 2015

mate by including transboundary and high seas spe- similar pattern was observed for contribution to global cies, thereby quantifying the full range of shared shared landed value (Fig. 3), except that there was a fisheries species. bigger difference in temporal change in Asia and Further, we fill another data gap by estimating the North America’s contribution to shared landed value landed value of shared fisheries species worldwide. compared to shared catch. Our results are generally Economic factors do not normally play a role in the consistent with the ‘changing face of global fisheries’ allocation processes for shared fisheries, even though described by Watson & Pauly (2013), i.e. global fish- economics can motivate better compliance (Bailey et eries landings were dominated by and Asia al. 2013). We estimated that the global landed value in the 1950s, but these were overtaken by South of shared fish species totaled USD 6.3 × 109 in 1950, America by the 2000s. and increased to USD 30.7 × 109 by 2006. Shared landed value made up a smaller proportion of total global landed value compared to catch, averaging Temporal trend by country about 33% for the entire 1950−2006 period. While shared catch as a percentage of total catch rose from Corresponding to the shift in regions, there was a the mid-1970s to mid-1990s, the percentage of noticeable shift in countries catching shared species shared landed value showed a decreasing trend from from 1950 to 2006. In the 1950s, Japan and the mid-1970s to mid-1980s, then reached a peak of were the major countries catching shared species, around 45% in the mid-1990s, and decreased steadily 60 thereafter (Fig. 1). This implies the existence of dif- ferent drivers of trends in catches and landed values Catch 50 of shared species (landed value being mainly driven by price), and again highlights the need to consider economic indicators in addition to catch quantity in 40 the management of international fisheries. 30 Landed value % shared Temporal trend by region 20

The number of countries catching shared fish spe- 10 cies almost doubled between 1950 and 2005, from 76 in 1950 to 151 in 2005. African and Caribbean coun- 0 tries and territories were responsible for over 50% 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 of the increased participation (28 and 26%, respec- Fig. 1. Shared fish catch and landed value as percentages of total fish catch and landed value across all countries from tively), followed by Asia and Oceania (both 17%), 1950 to 2006 and finally South America (5%). Many of these later participants were developing nations (Table S3 in the 60 Supplement at www. int-res. com/articles/ suppl/m530 1950 p243_ supp.pdf ). Since the annual catch data pre- 50 2005 sented here is inclusive of foreign-caught fish landed in each home country, the increase in the number of countries partially reflects the spatial expansion of 40 global fishing effort. This occurred as the major dis- tant water fishing nations took to fishing in the terri- 30 torial waters of other less developed countries in the south following the depletion of fisheries in the 20 northern hemisphere (Swartz et al. 2010).

South America and Europe experienced the largest % of global shared catch 10 changes in their contributions to global shared catch between 1950 and 2005. While the contribution of 0 South America grew dramatically from less than 1% Africa Asia Europe N America Oceania S America in 1950 to 38% in 2005, Europe’s contribution de - Fig. 2. Shared fish catch by region as percentage of global creased from 56 to 19% in the same period (Fig. 2). A shared catch, 1950 and 2005 Teh & Sumaila: Shared fisheries economics 247

60 1950 shared species, with a rapid rise in the late 1950s to 1960s. The opposite trend was observed for Norway, 2005 50 where the proportion of shared species declined from a high in the 1950s to a minimum in the late 1970s, 40 then experienced another dip in the 1990s. In general, the percentage of shared landed value was lower 30 than catch through time (1950–2006). There was also much more fluctuation in shared landed values com- 20 pared to catches for all ‘top’ countries, suggesting that shared fisheries are relatively more sensitive to 10 market drivers. In the most recent period (2000–2006), the major % of global shared landed value shared fisheries countries were also among the top 10 0 Africa Asia Europe N America Oceania S America fishing nations globally in terms of landings and Fig. 3. Landed value of shared fish catch by region as per- landed value (Table 3). Further, Japan, China, and centage of global totals, 1950 and 2005 South Korea are among the top 10 countries world- wide in terms of subsidies provided to their national accounting for 22 and 16% of global shared fisheries fishing industries (Sumaila et al. 2013). At the same catch, respectively. By the 2000s, Peru was the domi- time, China is the only top shared fisheries country nant country, accounting for 26% of global shared that is also among the top 10 countries providing mar- fish catch; this was double that of the second ranking ine employment (Teh & Sumaila 2013). Thus, on a country, Chile, which accounted for 11% of global global scale, a common characteristic of major shared shared fish catch (Fig. 4). fisheries countries is their dominance in fisheries pro- For the entire period 1950−2006, the 5 ‘top catch’ duction, high provision of fisheries subsidies, and countries, which accounted for the largest percent- limited contribution to global marine em ployment. age of global shared fish catch, were Peru, Japan, Chile, Norway and USA. Altogether, the combined catch from these countries accounted for 55% of the Temporal trend by species global shared catch for the period. Japan and Nor- way were consistently among the top 5 countries and herring were the 2 fish species throughout this period, although the importance of that together made up around 48% of global shared Norway decreased in the 1970s. Japan remained fish catches from 1950 to 59 (Fig. 5). However, their among the top 2 until the 1990s, when Peru and Chile contribution to total global shared fish catch de - began to dominate, and China became more promi- creased from 1960 onwards, while the proportional nent among the top 5 (Table 2). catch of anchoveta, South American pilchard, and Inca The top 5 countries with the highest landed values scad increased. started to make up a (top LV countries) for the period 1950−2006 were larger part of global shared fish catch in the 1980s. largely similar, being led by Japan and followed by Atlantic cod was also the largest single contributor Peru, Norway, Chile, and (Table 2). These to global shared fish landed value from 1950 to 59. countries together accounted for 49% of the global Similar to the global shared fish catch trend, the shared landed value. Argentina appeared among the proportional contribution of Atlantic cod to global top 5 as of 1990, whereas , Spain, and Norway shared fish landed value decreased after the 1960s, were no longer in the top 5 group after 1990. Similar while that of tunas started to increase from the 1970s to the pattern observed for catch, the combined con- (Fig. 6). Japanese flying and European hake tribution of Peru and Chile to global shared fisheries were among the top contributors to global shared fish landed value has progressively increased through landed value for the entire analysis period, even time (Table 2). though these 2 groups were not among the top con- Among the ‘top’ countries, Peru’s catches were most tributors to global shared fish catch, an indication of concentrated on shared species. Starting from the the high price per unit weight they command. 1960s, almost the entire annual catch from Peru The temporal trend of targeted shared species re - consisted of shared species, except for brief dips in flects the transition from European to South Ameri- the mid-1970s, 1980s, and mid-1990s. Chile has also can dominance of fisheries. In the 1950s, Atlantic cod ex perienced a large increase in the proportion of was the species which made up the single largest 248 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 530: 243–254, 2015

Fig. 4. Average shared fish catch by country as percentage of global shared fish catch totals for the periods (a) 1950−1959 and (b) 2000−2006

Table 2. Top 5 countries accounting for the highest shared fisheries catch and shared fish landed value, as percentages of global totals, 1950 to 2006

Country 1950−59 1960−69 1970−79 1980−89 1990−99 2000−06 rank Country % Country % Country % Country % Country % Country %

Shared fisheries catch 1 Japan 23 Peru 37 Peru 24 Japan 21 Peru 21 Peru 23 2 Norway 15 Japan 14 Japan 17 Chile 15 Chile 15 Chile 10 3 UK 8 Norway 7 Chile 5 Peru 14 Japan 13 Japan 8 4 Russia 6 Russia 5 Russia 5 USA 4 USA 5 China 7 5 Germany 5 UK 4 Norway 5 Norway 3 China 4 Norway 5 Shared landed value 1 Japan 14 Japan 24 Japan 30 Japan 34 Japan 27 Japan 17 2 Norway 13 Peru 13 Norway 6 Spain 5 Peru 10 Peru 15 3 UK 12 Norway 8 Spain 6 Canada 5 Chile 9 Chile 7 4 Russia 8 Russia 7 Peru 5 Korea 4 Argentina 9 China 5 5 8 UK 6 France 4 Norway 4 Korea 5 Korea 5 Teh & Sumaila: Shared fisheries economics 249

contribution to global shared catch, but in later peri- Table 3. The top 5 shared fisheries countries in terms of ods it was supplanted by anchoveta, which ac - catch and landed value (LV) and their rankings in global total fisheries catch and LV for the period 2000–2006 counted for 25% of global shared catches for the 2000−2006 period. The trend was slightly different Country Rank Country Rank for landed value. While Atlantic cod was also the sin- Shared Total Shared Total gle largest contributor to landed value in the 1950s, catch catch LV LV both an choveta and tunas became increasingly important in later periods. For the most recent period, Peru 1 2 Japan 1 6 i.e. 2000−2006, tunas (skipjack, yellowfin, and big- Chile 2 5 Peru 2 2 Japan 3 6 Chile 3 5 eye) together contributed slightly more than half of China 4 1 China 4 1 global shared landed value, surpassing anchoveta, Norway 5 10 Korea 5 13 which contributed 38%. The countries which ac- counted for the largest proportion of the world’s tuna landed value from 2000 onwards were Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia. Of note is that 100 All others Japan, Korea, and Taiwan have large distant water 90 South American fleets that operate throughout the Pacific to catch pilchard tunas (Williams & Reid 2005). The strong presence of 80 Skipjack tuna foreign fishing fleets adds pressure to tuna fish stocks Inca scad that are, in many cases, under weak national gover- 70 nance by Pacific island nations (Havice & Campling 60 Chub 2010). A slightly different trend emerged from analysis of 50 Atlantic herring Atlantic cod shared fish species targeted by the most number of 40 countries in 1950 and 2006. In the 1950s, Atlantic cod Anchoveta was the shared species caught by the largest number 30 of countries, followed by European and had- % of total global shared catch 20 dock (Table 4). By 2006, the most commonly caught shared fish species worldwide were tunas and sword- 10 fish. A key difference between 1950 and 2006 is the 0 number of fishing countries targeting one or more 1950–59 1960–69 1970–79 1980–89 1990–00 2000–06 shared species: in 1950 there were 76 countries with a Fig. 5. Major fish groups contributing to total global shared fish shared fisheries catch, whereas by 2006 the number catch, 1950 to 2006 of countries had doubled to 152. This again reflects the global expansion of fishing effort. The highly migratory nature of tunas highlights the increased need for global scale fisheries management, com- 100 All others pared to the more regional focus adopted for man- Skipjack tuna agement of species with more restricted distributions 80 such as Atlantic cod, sprat, and in the 1950s. Japanese flying Concerns have been expressed that regional fish- squid European hake eries management organizations which are responsi- 60 ble for management and conservation of the world’s various tuna stocks have not been effective (Cullis- Atlantic herring Suzuki & Pauly 2010, Bailey et al. 2013). 40 Atlantic cod In 2006, 28 countries (‘large shared catch’ coun- Anchoveta tries) had total catches comprising at least 75% 20 shared fisheries species (Table 5). Skipjack tuna was the species that most frequently contributed to shared % of global shared landed value catch among these countries (in 32% of cases). This 0 was followed by Atlantic herring (11% of cases). In 1950–59 1960–69 1970–79 1980–89 1990–00 2000–06 2006, 16 countries had landed values of which at Fig. 6. Major fish groups contributing to total global shared fish least 75% were from shared species (‘large shared landed value, 1950 to 2006 250 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 530: 243–254, 2015

Table 4. Top 5 shared catch species in 1950 and 2006, showing tuna, the fish species caught by the largest the number of countries that caught each species, and the corre- number of ‘large shared catch’ countries, is not sponding percentage of shared fisheries countries that caught each species a major contributor to catch for the ‘top catch’ countries (Table 6). Similarly, yellowfin tuna was the most commonly oc curring fish species Species 1950 Species 2006 No. of % No. of % contributing to landed values among ‘large countries countries shared LV’ countries (Table 5), but was a less prominent contributing species to the ‘top LV’ Atlantic cod 20 26 Skipjack tuna 79 52 countries. This difference in the relative impor- 16 21 Bigeye tuna 71 47 Haddock 15 20 65 43 tance of target species highlights the potential Skipjack tuna 15 20 55 36 for conflicts of interests in the joint manage- 14 18 Yellowfin tuna 51 34 ment of shared fisheries.

LV’ countries) (Table 5). Yellowfin tuna was the Reliance on shared fisheries species that most frequently contributed to shared landed value among these countries (in 25% of cases), The picture changes when considering countries followed by skipjack tuna (19% of cases) (Table 5). that depend most on shared fisheries, (i.e. where A breakdown of the primary species caught by the shared fisheries make the highest percentage contri- ‘top catch’ and ‘top LV’ countries is presented in bution to the total national catch). The countries with Table 6 for the period 2000−2006. A key difference the highest average contribution of shared fisheries compared with data for ‘large shared catch’ and to the total national catch across the 1950−2006 ‘large shared LV’ countries (Table 5) is that skipjack period were Finland (95%), followed by Greenland

Table 5. Countries in which shared species made up ≥75% of total catch and landed value in 2006

Country Catch Country Landed value % shared Top fish group/ % shared Top fish group/ fish species fish species

Faroe Islands 75 Blue whiting Barbados 76 Common dolphinfish Chile 76 Inca scad Nauru 76 Yellowfin tuna Algeria 77 European pilchard Slovenia 76 European Ireland 78 Blue whiting Saint Pierre and 76 Atlantic cod 79 European pilchard Martinique Maldives 79 Skipjack tuna St Vincent 76 Yellowfin tuna Slovenia 79 European anchovy Cook Islands 79 Albacore Papua New 81 Skipjack tuna Antilles 79 Yellowfin tuna St Vincent 81 Yellowfin tuna Poland 80 Atlantic cod Ecuador 82 Skipjack tuna American Samoa 81 Albacore Norway 82 Atlantic herring Ecuador 81 Skipjack tuna American Samoa 84 Albacore Guatemala 82 Yellowfin tuna Cook Islands 84 Albacore Peru 87 Anchoveta Poland 84 Atlantic cod 92 European anchovy Sweden 84 Atlantic herring Marshall Islands 93 Skipjack tuna Nauru 85 Skipjack tuna Greenland 94 Northern Barbados 86 Flying Vanuatu 95 Skipjack tuna Tuvalu 86 Skipjack tuna Micronesia 87 Skipjack tuna Estonia 88 European sprat Georgia 88 European anchovy Guatemala 89 Yellowfin tuna Netherlands Antilles 89 Skipjack tuna Greenland 92 Northern prawn Finland 97 Atlantic herring Peru 97 Anchoveta Marshall Islands 98 Skipjack tuna Vanuatu 98 Skipjack tuna Teh & Sumaila: Shared fisheries economics 251

Table 6. Composition of shared catch and landed value (LV) for the 5 ‘top catch’ and ‘top LV’ countries for the period 2000−2006. Figures in parentheses show percentage contribution of each named species to total catch or LV

Country Country Composition of shared catch Country Composition (%) of total shared LV rank

1 PeruAnchoveta (93), Inca scad (3), jumbo Japan Bigeye tuna (35), skipjack tuna (22), yellow- flying squid (3), chub mackerel (1), South fin tuna (17), Japanese flying squid (16), American pilchard (1) albacore (9) 2 ChileInca scad (43), anchoveta (37), chub Peru Anchoveta (93), jumbo flying squid (3), Inca mackerel (11), jumbo flying squid (3), scad (2), chub mackerel (1), (0.3) Patagonian grenadier (3) Chile Anchoveta (44), Inca scad (31), Patagonian 3 Japan Skipjack tuna (27), chub mackerel (25), grenadier (12), chub mackerel (7), jumbo Japanese flying squid (19), Japanese flying squid (6) anchovy (18), (11) China Seerfishes (26), silver pomfrets (24), filefishes 4 China (43), silver pomfret (21), (15), Japanese anchovy (14) (16), seerfishes (16), chub mackerel (13), Korea Bigeye tuna (27), Japanese flying squid (24), squid (12) skipjack tuna (22), yellowfin tuna (20), 5 Norway Blue whiting (39), Atlantic herring (37), Japanese anchovy (7) Atlantic cod (12), Atlantic mackerel (9), haddock (3)

(90%), Peru (88%), Barbados (87%), and Sweden landed value. This implies a disparity in the interests (86%). Throughout the period, Greenland, Finland, each group may have in the sustainability of shared and Peru were consistently among the top 5 countries fisheries resources. It also brings up the issue of in this list. Since 2000, Barbados, the Marshall Islands equity: most RFMO allocation schemes are based on and Micronesia have joined Peru and Finland in the historical catch (Bailey et al. 2013), and thus favour top 5. The pattern was similar for landed value. The the ‘top catch’ countries, which tend to be the major top 5 countries with the highest average percentage fishing powers. However, many of the ‘large shared contribution of shared fisheries to total national landed catch’ and particularly ‘large shared LV’ countries value across the 1950−2006 period were Greenland (Table 5) tend to be smaller developing countries that (92%), Finland (86%), Barbados (80%), St. Pier Mar- are disproportionately dependent on the same shared tinique (79%), and Peru (75%). Finland and Green - fisheries resources to support food security and eco- land were consistently among the top 5 countries nomies. This is an important point that should be con- until 2000, since when the top 5 countries have been sidered in the allocation scheme of RFMOs. However, Vanuatu and Marshall Islands (both 94%), Peru it is noted that only the WCPFC considers food se - (91%), Micronesia (87%), and Slovenia (86%). curity among its allocation criteria (Bailey et al. 2013). In contrast, the top 5 countries that contributed most to global shared fish catches and landed value (Table 2) were not highly dependent on shared fish Temporal trend in countries with shared fisheries stocks nationally, with the exception of Peru. From 1950 to 2006, shared species accounted for, on aver- We identified countries which made the transition age, 75% of the total national landed value in the case from having no shared fisheries at all at the begin- of Peru, but only about half of total landed value of ning of the analysis period to being heavily depend- the other 4 ‘top LV’ countries, i.e. Chile (45%), Japan ent on shared fish catch post-2000, and vice versa (47%), Spain (50%), and Norway (65%). Likewise, (Table 7). To reduce the effect of data anomalies, with the exception of Peru, the 5 top countries that countries were selected only if their percentage of contributed most to global shared fish catches were shared fish catch was consistent for the most recent not highly dependent on shared fish stocks. Shared period of 2000 to 2006. Overall, there were more fish species made up between 20% (USA) and 88% countries showing an increase, rather than decrease, (Peru) of national catches for these countries. This in re liance on shared fish catch. Countries which had shows that in most cases, countries which account for the highest increase in shared fish catch for the time the highest proportion of global shared catch and period under consideration were mainly small island landed value (Table 2) are not those for which shared nations in Oceania. The most common species con- species constitute the majority of national catch and tributing to the increase in shared catch for these 252 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 530: 243–254, 2015

Table 7. Countries with greatest change in shared fish catch, ung et al. 2010). Consequently, in some years certain as a proportion (%) of the respective country’s total fish fish stocks may become transboundary resources, catch through time. The starting year (in parentheses) varies while in other years they remain domestic fisheries by country depending on data reported in the ‘Sea Around Us’ database. The ending year is 2006 for all countries within 1 country’s EEZ (e.g. Pacific ). For example, the co-operative management of Pacific Country/territory Shared fish catch Region between Canada and the USA was affected (% of total by climate shifts (Munro 2009). In particular, the national fish catch) population size of anchoveta, the species which con- % (year) % in 2006 stitutes the largest proportion of global shared catch, is sensitive to shifts in climate regimes (Daw et al. Palau 91 (1970) 0 Oceania Marshall Islands 0 (1970) 98 Oceania 2009). The effect of climate change on the catch American Samoa 0 (1990) 84 Oceania of global shared fisheries is an important area for Tuvalu 1 (1985) 86 Oceania further research, which we were unable to address in St. Vincent 2 (1990) 81 Caribbean this study because we assumed that shared species Reunion 2 (1950) 61 Indian Ocean Cook Islands 7 (1970) 84 Oceania remained ‘shared’ for the entire analysis period from Nauru 8 (2000) 85 Oceania 1950 to 2006. This broad-scale analysis contributes an under- standing of temporal changes in global shared fish- countries were yellowfin and skipjack tuna. That eries. Our results may be used to clarify the relative such a disproportionately high number of island importance of shared fisheries to individual countries, nations have increased their dependence on tuna thereby contributing to more informed and transpar- once again highlights the importance of sustainable ent process for multinational fisheries management. and equitable management of shared tuna fisheries This study also provides an insight into why inter - worldwide. national fisheries management is challenging, and At the same time, the change in yellowfin and skip- likely to become even more so. First, the number of jack tuna catches also contributed to the decrease in participants in shared fisheries has doubled in the shared fish catch for Palau, the country showing the past 55 yr, indicating the need to accommodate a largest decrease in shared fish catch over the study greater number and diversity of interests as well as period. In fact, Palau was the only country for which increased competition for resources. Indeed, the po- shared fish catch decreased to zero by 2006. The tential for overexploitation increases with the number decline of the domestic pole and line skipjack fishery of countries sharing a fishery resource (McWhinnie starting in the 1980s was likely a contributing factor 2009). Second, the most commonly targeted species to this decline. As of 2011, there was only 1 vessel have shifted from those that were mainly restricted remaining in the Palauan pole and line fleet (Gillett to the North Atlantic (e.g. Atlantic cod, haddock) to 2011). species that are highly migratory and are distributed throughout the world, thereby making monitoring potentially more difficult and costly. This is exacer- CONCLUSIONS bated by the poor performance of regional fisheries management organizations responsible for oversee- Actions for fisheries conservation are a priority ing the management of global tuna stocks (Cullis in moving towards the internationally adopted Aichi Suzuki & Pauly 2010, Gjerde et al. 2013). Lastly, the Biodiversity Target of achieving sustainable fisheries countries which account for the highest proportion of by 2020 (www.cbd.int/sp/targets/). Allocation issues global shared fish species catch and landed value stand out as one of the challenges for international tend to be large industrial fishing powers such as fisheries governance. The estab lishment of fair allo- Japan and China. In contrast, those which are most cation mechanisms is a priority because agreements reliant on shared fisheries on a national scale are that are perceived to be inequitable are generally not mainly smaller developing countries. In addition, the complied with (Bailey et al. 2013). Moreover, dis- most commonly caught species generally differ be- putes over rights to catches of transboundary, strad- tween these 2 groups. Overall, the disparity between dling and high seas fisheries will likely be exacer- these 2 groups in terms of fishing capacity, target spe- bated in the future given that changing climate cies and, thus, negotiating power in international are- regimes are predicted to cause shifts in the spatial nas reinforces concerns about equity in the manage- distribution and seasonality of target species (Che- ment and allocation of shared fishery resources. Teh & Sumaila: Shared fisheries economics 253

LITERATURE CITED Maguire JJ, Sissenwine M, Csirke J, Grainger R (2006) The state of world highly migratory, straddling and other Agnew DJ, Pearce J, Pramod G, Peatman T, Watson R, Bed- high seas fish stocks, and associated species. FAO Fish- dington JR, Pitcher TJ (2009) Estimating the worldwide eries Tech Pap 495, FAO, Rome extent of illegal fishing. PLoS ONE 4:e4570 McWhinnie SF (2009) The tragedy of the commons in inter- Allen R (2010) International management of tuna fisheries: national fisheries: an empirical examination. J Environ arrangements, challenges and a way forward. FAO Fish- Econ Manage 57: 321−333 eries and Tech Pap 536, FAO, Rome Menasveta D (2000) APFIC: its changing role. Asia Pacific Armstrong C, Sumaila UR (2000) Cannibalism and the opti- Fishery Commission RAP Publication 2000/05, FAO, mal sharing of the north-east Atlantic cod stock: a bio - Bangkok economic model. J Bioecon 2:99−115 Miller KA (2007) Climate variability and tropical tunas: Arnason R, Magnusson G, Agnarson S (2000) The Norwe- management challenges for highly migratory fish stocks. gian spring-spawning herring fishery: a stylized game Mar Policy 31: 56−70 model. Mar Resour Econ 15: 293−319 Miller KA, Munro GR, Sumaila UR, Cheung WWL (2013) Bailey M, Ishimura G, Paisley R, Sumaila UR (2013) Moving Governing marine fisheries in a changing climate: a beyond catch in allocation approaches for internationally game-theoretic perspective. Can J Agric Econ 61:309−334 shared fish stocks. Mar Policy 40:124−136 Munro G (1979) The optimal management of transboundary Cardinale M, Dorner H, Abella A and others (2013) Rebuild- renewable resources. Can J Econ 12:355−376 ing EU fish stocks and fisheries, a process under way? Munro G (2009) Game theory and the development of Mar Policy 39: 43−52 resource management policy: the case of international Cheung WWL, Lam VWY, Sarmiento JL and others (2010) fisheries. Environ Dev Econ 14:7−27 Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch Munro G, van Houtte A, Willmann R (2004) The conser - potential in the global ocean under climate change. Glob vation and management of shared fish stocks: legal and Change Biol 16: 24−35 economic aspects. FAO Fisheries Tech Pap 465, FAO, Cullis-Suzuki S, Pauly D (2010) Failing the high seas: a Rome global evaluation of regional fisheries management Norse EA, Brooke S, Cheung WWL, Clark MR and others organizations. Mar Policy 34:1036−1042 (2012) Sustainability of deep-sea fisheries. Mar Policy 36: Daw T, Adger WN, Brown K, Badjeck MC (2009) Climate 307−320 change and capture fisheries: potential impacts, adapta- Rogers AD, Sumaila UR, Hussain SS, Balcomb C (2014). The tion and mitigation. In: Cochrane K, De Young C, Soto D, high seas and us: understanding the value of high-seas Bahri T (eds) Climate change implications for fisheries ecosystems. The Global Ocean Commission, Oxford and aquaculture: overview of current scientific knowl- Sumaila UR (1997) Strategic dynamic interaction: the case edge. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Tech Pap 530, of Barents Sea fisheries. Mar Resour Econ 12: 77−94 FAO, Rome, p 107−150 Sumaila UR (2012) Overfishing: call to split fisheries at home FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United and abroad. Nature 481, doi: 10.1038/481265c Nations) (1994) World review of highly migratory species Sumaila UR, Huang L (2012) Managing bluefin tuna in the and straddling stocks. FAO Fisheries Tech Pap 337, FAO, . Mar Policy 36:502−511 Rome Sumaila UR, Alder J, Keith H (2006) Global scope and eco- FAO (2003) Papers presented at the Norway-FAO Expert nomics of illegal fishing. Mar Policy 30: 696−703 Consultation on the Management of Shared Fish Stocks. Sumaila UR, Marsden AD, Watson R, Pauly D (2007) A Bergen, Norway, 7−10 October 2002. FAO Fisheries Rep global ex-vessel fish price database: construction and 695 (Suppl), FAO, Rome applications. J Bioecon 9: 39−51 Froese R, Proelß A (2010) Rebuilding fish stocks no later Sumaila UR, Cheung WWL, Lam VWY, Pauly D, Herrick S than 2015: Will Europe meet the deadline? Fish Fish 11: (2011) Climate change impacts on the biophysics and 194−202 economics of world fisheries. Nat Clim Change 1: Gillett R (2011) The promotion of pole-and-line tuna fishing 449−456 in the Pacific Islands: emerging issues and lessons Sumaila UR, Lam V, Le Manach F, Swartz W, Pauly D (2013) learned. ISSF Tech Rep 2011-08, International Seafood Global fisheries subsidies: note. Report prepared for Sustainability Foundation, McLean, VA European Parliament Policy Department B: Structural Gjerde K, Currie D, Wowk K, Sack K (2013) Ocean in peril: and Cohesion Policies. www.europarl.europa.eu/ Reg reforming the management of global ocean living re - Data/ etudes/note/join/2013/513978/IPOL-PECH_ NT% sources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Mar Pollut 282013%29513978_EN.pdf (accessed 20 March 2014) Bull 74:540−551 Swartz W, Sala E, Tracey S, Watson R, Pauly D (2010) The Haughton MO, Mahon R, McConney P, Kong GA, Mills A spatial expansion and ecological footprint of fisheries (2004) Establishment of the Caribbean Regional Fisheries (1950 to present). PLoS ONE 5: e15143 Mechanism. Mar Policy 28: 351−359 Swartz W, Sumaila UR, Watson R (2012) Global ex-vessel Havice E, Campling L (2010) Shifting tides in the Western fish price database revisited: a new approach for estimat- and Central Pacific Ocean tuna fishery: the political eco - ing ‘missing’ prices. Environ Resour Econ 56: 467−480 nomy of regulation and industry responses. Glob Environ doi: 10.1007/s10640-012-9611-1 Polit 10:89−114 Teh L, Sumaila UR (2013) Contribution of marine fisheries to ISSF (International Seafood Sustainability Foundation) worldwide employment. Fish Fish 14: 77−88 (2013) ISSF tuna stock status update 2013(2): status of the Ungaro N, Joksimovic A, Pesic A, Djurovic M and others world fisheries for tuna. ISSF Tech Rep 2013-04A, Inter- (2008) Identification of the priority species and shared national Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, stocks in the Mediterranean Geographical sub-area 18 DC (Southern ). Paper presented at the GFCM- 254 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 530: 243–254, 2015

SAC Sub Committee on Stock Assessment, Antalya, PLoS Biol 12: e1001826 , 13−16 October 2008. GCP/RER/010/ITA/OP-29. Williams P, Reid C (2005) Overview of tuna fisheries in the AdriaMed Occas Pap 29 Western and Central Pacific Ocean, including economic ➤ Watson RA, Pauly D (2013) The changing face of global fish- conditions: 2004. Report no. WCPFC-SC1 GN WP-1. eries − the 1950s vs. the 2000s. Mar Policy 42:1−4 Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, New ➤ Watson R, Kitchingman A, Gelchu A, Pauly D (2004) Map- Caledonia ping global fisheries: sharpening our focus. Fish Fish 5: ➤ Worm B, Brendal D, Kettemer L, Ward-Paige CA and others 168−177 (2013) Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding ➤ White C, Costello C (2014) Close the high seas to fishing? options for sharks. Mar Policy 40:194−204

Submitted: April 2, 2014; Accepted: September 18, 2014 Proofs received from author(s): November 22, 2014